Jump to content

Talk:Angi Inc./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

Tagged "Membership Information" section for NPOV/accuracy. Issues include: No sources cited. Clearly not NPOV. Writing in the first person. Darkgrrrl (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Twice now I've removed the following links from this article:

The first time was when I first found the article and started working on it; the second was today after someone at IP address 24.163.244.198 added them.

Critical links and commentary are welcome, essential in fact for neutral point of view, but these links are to discussion forums which are not considered reliable sources and, I believe, fail Wikipedia's external links policy (see #10 under "Links normally to be avoided"). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

As an employee of Angie's List I'd like to offer some suggestions to improve the Angie's List article and work towards a neutral point of view. (I'll refrain from editing the actual page to keep any bias I may show out of the article):

  • We are now in 124 cities and have over 500,000 members. [1]
  • In the first sentence, I think the qualifier "little more" is first of all an inaccurate portrayal of what the New York Times article says, unnecessary, and presents a negative point of view.
  • I would also ask that somebody change the category number to more than 250 categories. I wouldn't put an exact number since we are adding to and growing our category list all the time. It started with 150 and grew to over 250 last year. An Indiana Business Journal article quotes the number at 400 now. [2]
  • At the end of the first paragraph, it is true that there was once an Angie Cash fundraising program. However, I feel it is presented negatively by saying "resorted to." It wasn't a last resort. It was a way to open in new cities and have reviews for people to use right away. Please consider rewording this.
    • I agree the wording here is problematical. I've been searching off and on all-day for any sort of source that gives more detail about the program and haven't found anything except cached versions of old webpages. Do you know where we could go to read about this defunct program? I'm sort of unclear how exactly it worked.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving
  • Angie's List does not control a company's ratings, the members do. The only reports Angie's List will not accept are those containing inappropriate language, or those that we discover are submitted by a company or a surrogate (friend or family member) on their own company or a competing company. If you have a verifiable and reliable source that says Angie's List actually chooses which reports to accept in an effort to control ratings, please provide that source, otherwise this statement should be removed.
  • The 15,000 reports a month refers to the number that are actually added to the list and does not include any reports that have to be excluded for the above reasons.
  • Somebody added the comment that "Assuming it uses them all, it would take over 77 years for Angie's List to get, on average, a single review on each of the 14 million businesses in the United States." I don't understand what this has to do with anything. Angie's list doesn't claim to try to obtain reports on all 14 million business in the US. Angie's List doesn't even rate certain service industries such as restaurants and retailers at this time. We are also not in every city of the US yet.
  • Also, I don't understand why everything says that Angie's List "claims" when there are cited sources which provide this information. It is more than a claim, it is a verifiable statement.
  • Perhaps someone would like to review the current articles on Insider Pages and Yelp to see what a more npov would like for this type of company (even though there are a lot of differences in the companies themselves). I also like the features section on those pages - anyone interested in starting that?SarahER 20:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)SarahER

Sarah, there seem to be many problems with those articles as well. For example, the InsiderPages article makes a statement that the company has laid off 2/3 of its work force and cites a blog which states that its getting its information from the competitors of the company. Hardly a reliable source. Recognizing that you are a competitor, perhaps you can contribute to the talk pages for those articles to get the editing process started, perhaps even suggesting that someone remove the Angie's List link since you seem to be of the opinion that such links are spam (I noticed that you removed the links to these companies on the Angie's List article. Personally, I'm not particularly interested in those companies since, as far as I know, neither of those companies have made grandiose statements about themselves as Angie's List has done in my opinion. Neither of them charge consumers, as far as I know, and as far as I can tell neither of them edit the reviews provided by users. Since you are in the industry, perhaps you know more about those companies than any of us editing this page. So get the ball rolling if you would--24.163.255.34 06:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OnUnicorn: First of all, you should not have removed those links. They were clearly marked as what they are "critical reviews of Angie's List" When those links were added and then removed, the wiki article looked like an Angie's list press release.
Sarah: A neutral point of view requires that otherwise misleading "facts" be accompanied by some proper perspective.
Examples:
1. Saying you have 15000 reports a month sounds great until you consider what that means. So, you either need to add a fair perspective or delete the misleading fact. I choose to add a fair perspective. Delete the fact entirely if you want.
  • You may consider it a fair perspective but it's misleading. I think it would be more fair to say that "some submissions may not be included if they violate the membership agreement" and then let the readers draw their own conclusions from that. SarahER 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)SarahER
2. Saying contractors can't post reviews on themselves is misleading unless Angie's List explains what exactly prevents a contractor from using surrogates to bypass this rule. As far as I can tell, nothing. Your own comment that "those that we discover are submitted by a company or a surrogate" seems to acknowledge the problem, but you don't say how you go about "discovering" this, or if you even try considering the fact that it is not in the company's interest to do so, considering the extra revenues from this pratice (more subscriptions) and the very high costs of trying to prevent it in any meaningful way.
  • I believe it does say, with a cited source, how we go about discovering false reports. Every report is reviewed by an employee and checked for irregularities. There are many things employees are trained to look for, some of which are described in the Chicago Sun Times article. [6] I realize you'll argue that this information comes from the company, but if you don't consider a newspaper article (or a business journal) a reliable source please let me know where you expect to find any reliably sourced information on any business. SarahER 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)SarahER
The term "resorted" is a fair interpretation of the New York Times article, and is a FACT, the wiki article does not say "last resort"
Angie's List does not incorporate every member submission. That is a fact confirmed on its own website. Readers of the article may draw their own conclusions. No one will ever find a reliable source that this is done "in a effort to control ratings" as it is virtually impossible to find sources of someone's intent. You say that the members not Angie's List controls ratings. Assuming the company does not pick and choose, by your own admission, you would need to state "the members and those we have paid to submit reviews control the ratings."
  • As I stated above, I think it would be more fair and appropriate to say that "some submissions may not be included if they violate the membership agreement" and then let the readers draw their own conclusions from that. We don't "pick and choose." Perhaps you would be satisfied with saying that "consumers" submit reviews and therefore control the ratings. SarahER 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)SarahER
Use of the phrase "claims to" or "according to" is this only way to portray "facts" that come from the company itself while still maintaining a npov. "Company profile" newspaper articles, which is what most of the cited sources are, rely almost exclusively on information from the company itself, which is why they always sound great. These articles are largely due to the efforts of the company's public relations departments. Business Journals are the worst at this and should not be considered any more reliable than any other source including blogs, in my humble opinon. Compare the New York Times article which profiles not a single company, but an industry. Anyway, the use of the term "claims to" is the only way to include the statement while still maintaining a npov.
Of course their is a case to be made that the whole article is merely an advertisement. You don't suppose that's why there is an Angie's List employee on this site checking on it? Perish the thought. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.163.255.34 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-01t22:10:45z.
I can live with the "claims to" and "according to" statements.
I still believe "Assuming it uses them all, at that rate it would take over 77 years for Angie's List to get, on average, a single review on each of the 14 million businesses in the United States" is unnecessary and doesn't belong. This is not useful information about the company. See my above comment.  :::The membership data and financial information all seems to amount to original research to me. Much of it is based on assumptions which are entirely incorrect.
This article is far from an advertisement and my intention isn't to make it one. My intention is to keep it fair, accurate and neutral. Of course someone is going to notice when untrue statements are made about our company on a well known site like Wikipedia.SarahER 17:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)SarahER


  • I disagree 100% Angies List is only valuable if it does what it says it does "aggregate consumer reviews" If the consumer reviews only trickle in, it's worthless, and the company acknowledges that paid reviews are also not considered reliable.
  • Why don't you just release your financial information then?
  • What exactly is untrue about the current article? Saying generally that it is untrue or inaccurate is like President Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...these allegations are false" (a true statement, but designed to mislead others into beleiving that there is no truth to it.) If something is inaccurate, publish corrected and complete information on your website so we can reference it. You are selling the credibility of your list, yet there are a number of problems with your model that taints that credibility, 1) you paid for at least some of the reviews and do not disclose that on your website to new subscribers, 2) you accept advertising from those that are reviewed, creating a potential bias, 3) you determine which reviews to use and which ones not to use without publishing any information about how you determine that, 4) according to a reviewer on RateItAll.com, you forced a member give a contractor a B or better review when they did not want to, which if true explains why most of the companies have a B or better rating. If true, I think you need to fully disclose this policy, 5) there is a gaping loophole in your rule than contractors can't rate themselves, as pointed out in the article (a loophole which you have little incentive to close since it would drastically increase costs and the current loophole helps you sell more memberships, and 6) as mentioned in the article, what prevents Angie's List or its members from being sued by companies which are defamed? If the answer is nothing, then I would say that tempers the reviews significantly, unless you are not warning your members about that problem, which I'm sure your members would not appreciate when served with a summons.

I do think the stated purpose is a wonderful idea, but Angie's List model doesn't even come close to acheiving that goal, although it may work on a small scale.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.163.255.34 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your comments and don't intermingle them with what other people wrote - I moved comments that couldn't be picked out from what the previous editor wrote. Also, this talk page is not a soapbox. It is for discussing the article, not making unsourced accusations that aren't allowed in the article itself. Please don't use this page for ranting, your posts may be removed if they make accusations without sources. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo, perhaps you should follow your own advice and step down from your soapbox too.

Some of the requests for citiation are just silly. If you have a source that says Jack has two dollars and another that says Jill has three dollars, you don't need another source to support a statement that says Jack and Jill have $5 between them.

Of course the expense section is somewhat speculative. Angie's List doesn't release the information as far as I know. However, I don't think its speculating to say that Angie's List must pay its employees at least what the law requires even though they may be paying much more and we don't know for sure if they are complying with minimum wage laws. The point of the section is to inform the reader about categories of expenses based in its stated activities. Without this section, it makes the $14 million in revenues seem like the company is highly profitable, even though this may not be the case. Releasing your revenues without releasing your expenses is a common way companies puff themselves up, even though they may be losing money Anyway, the expense section makes the article better and the section makes clear that these are not based on raw numbers.

Just so I understand where you are coming from, what "accusations" would you be referring to, Milo? It seems like you may be defining an "accusation" as a statement of fact that Angie's List doesn't like.

Your editing of this discussion page makes it much harder to follow a given topic, in my opinion. Intermingling helps us stay on topic. I do agree that signing would be helpful, so here it is--24.163.255.34 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Speculation doesn't belong in WP articles, if we don't know a fact we shouldn't mention it in an article, not try and guess what it might be. If a reliable source has made a guess, we can cite that, but we can't do speculation, or even analysis or deduction. To put a $23.5M number in the article, you must have a source giving it. I'd urge you to read Wikipedia:No original research if you haven't already, it specifically forbids analysis or synthesis of existing facts. Why specifically did you revert my edit? Your version has many unsourced statements, and if you are unable to provide sources, they will be removed. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo, thanks for your opinion. Do you have some kind of authority here we should know about? If not, please refrain from your threats as anyone can revert anything you remove. Perhaps you aren't as up to date on Wikipedia policies as you think you are. As pointed out by earlier you should look at [7] before citing any Wikipedia policies. I reverted your edits because your demand for citiations is nonsense. It's adding perspective to a misleading fact, specifically Angie's List claims of $14 in revenue. "Revenue" is misleading without expenses you needed to incur to produce that revenue. This is an article about a company where almost every single source can be traced directly back to the company itself. Must we park our brains at the door and assume the company is going to release only neutral information? SUGGESTION: If you don't want what you call speculation in the article, I think we need to remove all revenue information and the 500,000 membership number from the article. The 500,000 number is clearly misleading unless clarified that it includes "members" using a free subscription. Revenue information without expense information is also misleading. Don't forget, there is an Angie's List employee (we assume) reviewing this article. If information is inaccurate, they can easily release information that we can cite to correct any error.

I also notice that you did not answer my question about what accusation are you referring to, or was that just a rant? If so, no problem. Rant away. I can take it :)--24.163.255.34 19:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules is for instances where the rules get in the way of doing what is best. As far as I can see, this is not one of those instances. As I said on your talk page; readers are not stupid. If I have a source saying Jack has two dollars and another that says Jill has three dollars, I don't need to make a statement that Jack and Jill have $5 between them because the reader can figure that out on their own. For me to say that the fact that Jack has two dollars and Jill has three dollars so they have five dollars means they cannot possibly buy a sandwich from Subway that costs $6.25 is original research and does not belong in the article, no matter what ignore all rules says. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The "rules" are getting in the way of doing what is best. That is the point. The rule pertains to what is best for Wikipedia, not what is best for Angie's List. Continuing with the example if you have reliable sources saying that Jack and Jill have $5 between them and Jack has $2, I don't think it's original research to say Jill has $3, especially if another source says, "Jill has lots of money" It's just grade school math and adding persective on an otherwise misleading fact of "Jill has lots of money" since we don't know what "lots of money" means. Now original research would be "Jill is obviously greedy" "Jill is more frugal than Jack" or "Jill makes more money than Jack"

Your statement that "the reader can figure it out" is highly irresponsible when dealing with misleading facts cited in this article. IMHO. I think we can agree that what is best is "truthful, non-misleading information that a reader can turn to for reliable neutral information." Throwing in misleading facts from the company does a disservice to Wikipedia since it would just end up being another piece of the company's public relations strategy. Besides, if the reader can figure it out, why not just refer them to the Angie's List website and the articles. Obviously, that's not good for Wikipedia either, hense the ignore all rules rule.

Angie's List seems to beleive that it is okay to use non-"reliable sources" when reviewing companies. I guess turn-about is not fair play in Angie's world. Given that, it is my opinion that taking a few liberties with the normal "rules" is not entirely unjustified in this case.--24.166.174.10 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The accusations were things like "you paid for at least some of the reviews", do you have a source for that? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ummm...yes (this is too easy), the New York Times article cited in the WP article and the Angie's List website from Internet archives (also cited in the WP article) Did you not even read the WP article you are editing? --24.163.255.34 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The 500k number is sourced, which is why it can stay. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can find a "reliable source" that says Iran is only developing peaceful nuclear technology, and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2003, that any number of people killed JFK, that the holocust is a fiction made up by Isreal, there is no legal requirement that you have to pay income taxes, that George Bush is a war criminal. Merely having a "reliable source" (which is often just repeating an unreliable source with an agenda) is a great way to make Wikipedia worthless as a reliable source of information. This is exactly the kind of situation the ignore all rules was designed to address.--24.163.255.34 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no authority, I'm just saying that original research and uncited info will be removed from the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do so unilaterally merely because you say so, rest assured your changes will be reverted just as fast. There is another wikipedia policy that may be applicable here, but I would be violating if I cited it, so please review all Wikipedia policies so I don't have to cite it--24.163.255.34 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to solicit more outside opinions for this article if you feel I'm misinterpreting WP policies. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the more the merrier--24.163.255.34 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:NOR, specifically the bit about analysis and synthesis? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have --24.163.255.34 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Apart from your "violation of wikipedia rules" argument, what is so troubling to you about the financial information section? I mean come on, if they have 200 employees which is sourced and there is a minimum wage law that can be sourced, what's so troubling about saying their payroll is at least $X. Is it the numbers or do you think mentioning that they have payroll at all is troubling?--24.163.255.34 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What is troubling is information that is speculation and original research with nothing to back it up. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are merely repeating your "violation of wikipedia rules" argument. I wouldn't say there is "nothing" to back it up. It may be specualation as to amount, but the expenses categories themselve are not speculation. Do you think these activities are free? As to amount, do you not think its fair to presume that they pay their employees at least a minimum wage? I don't think you are speculating, at least in this context, when you presume someone is not violating the law.--24.163.255.34 00:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So I am then. That doesn't invalidate the argument. And it's not fair to presume anything, this is an encyclopeda - presuming isn't what it's for. --Milo H Minderbinder 01:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Would that include presuming the company is providing the reliable sources with neutral unbiased information or even accurate information? I don't know of any traditional print encyclopedia that would publish an article on a private company like Angie's List for many reasons ranging from lack of reliable information to "who cares?". Wikipedia does, and that is great. However, if we strictly apply the normal rules to this article (or any other profile of a company) that does not have to release accurate information to the public (i.e., those that are not required to make disclosures to the SEC), Wikipedia will become largely worthless as a reliable source of information on such companies. Hence, I beleive it is appropriate to perhaps not blanketly apply the "ignore all rules" rule but to be somewhat liberal in the application of rules where "reliable sources" are typically using an unreliable sources as their source, such as the case of articles where a company is profiled. As demonstrated, if inaccurate information is posted, the company can certainly correct it by disclosing accurate information and providing links to "reliable sources". Although I have viewed information provided by the company with critical eye (as we all should), I do not think I have not simply disregarded it in editing this article.--24.163.255.34 06:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We do not presume that the info provided by the company is unbiased. That's why we generally include the information as "the company says...". That the company actually said it is a fact and isn't disputed by anyone I assume including yourself. It's up to the reader to accept the infofrom the company or not. If there is public skepticism over numbers, that skepticism will be expressed by a reliable source and then may be included in the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Way to go children! You got your toy taken away. By the way, I hear Jill has all $5 now. What a tramp! Icky-Wiki-God 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he started it! :) --24.163.255.34 00:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User 24.163.255.34 could you please create an account and log in so I don't have to keep referring to you as User 24.163.255.34 ? :0 Thanks Done --Call me 24 23:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Ok now then. Why don't you *both* take an editing break from Angie's List so things can settle down and I'm sure some of us can go through and um... correct... anything that is unencyclopedic or speculation or whatever the issues are. Wjhonson 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the article, particularly the last section? I'd appreciate an additional opinion, whether you think the statements there need sources and whether including them without sources would be original research. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm waiting for it to be unlocked :) Wjhonson 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This may well be the most non-neutral article I have read on Wikipedia. What a travesty. The negative spin is evident from the very first sentences. --sergeymk (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree with the above post. This article is blatantly biased, in favor of the company of course. The one-sidedness of this article stuck out like a sore thumb to me. This is the first time I have ever contributed to Wikipedia; I've never seen an article that did not at least raise concerns about such dishonestly. Wikipedia is one of the Internet's most trusted sources and this article makes Angie's List seem like an ethical, honest business, which it is not in the slightest. There are plenty of articles describing how sellers in fact can influence ratings easily, which contradicts the entire basis of Angie's List. I kindly ask that someone with Wikipedia experience please include a section noting the hypocrisy of the company. The fact that the company removed unfavorable information and inserted false information in this article clearly indicates that their intentions are deliberately crooked. It saddens me to see such a great community damaged by shameless corporations like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylemon (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow's headline: "Wikipedia exposes company fraud"?

I don't care about what policy covers this (I hope WP:SYNT), but we can't just collect facts to build a case against a company and publish it on wikipedia. Obvious or not, this means you are accusing them of lying, I mean does the editor in question realize how serious these accusations are?? Why doesn't he have the guts to publish his finding publicly instead of collecting it on Wikipedia? At least he should sign his name under the article, because I don't want to be part of these accusations! Delete it, unless this particular analysis is reliably sourced!!! --Merzul 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always wondered if adding gasoline helps to put out a fire. --Icky-Wiki-God 23:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think lying a strong word. I think the company is mostly spinning facts to make themselves look better, which is what companies do and probably why they are not to be considered reliable sources. I don't think it is appropriate to "collect facts to build a case against a company" but I also do not beleive one should blindly follow the company's spin, especially when there are inherent problems with that spin that can be demonstrated. Neither extreme would be a neutral point of view.

What part of the article accuses the company of "lying" in your mind and please explain just how "serious" they are.

I think this article was developing nicely and editors were reaching some consenus on disputed language without resorting to a flame war. Then one editor came in with an "I don't care what anyone else says attitude" (now two editors) and now we are where we are. --Call me 24 00:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you were just getting happy with the article because there weren't enough eyes on it to keep you from ignoring policy and doing whatever you want. I came in when this article was mentioned elsewhere - if there are multiple editors who disagree with you (looks like it's up to three now including the original editor you were going back and forth with) and you still insist on your edits, even if they violate policy, it sure looks like you're the one who doesn't care what anyone thinks. To be honest, I don't even see this as a flame war - one editor doesn't want to follow NOR and WP:V.
I support removing any unsourced claims, and giving a chance to provide sources for the ones that are tagged now (you're using this time while it's protected to look for sources, right?). With nobody agreeing with Call Me 24 that I see, that would seem to be the prevalent consensus so far. Are we ready to have the article unprotected? When we do, we should ask the admin to watch the article and if it is being unilaterally reverted to block the disruptive editor instead of locking the article. Should I make the request? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CallMe. ONUnicorn probably doesn't agree. Milo doesn't agree, Mezule doesn't agree. Sarah claims to be an Angie's List employee, and I wonder if there are others are on here that just won't own up to that or are using multiple accounts. Wjohnson hasn't offered a firm opinion and neither has Icky-Wiki-God (other than on Jill). Milo, I think CallMe was referring to the "Don't be a dick" policy earlier, and Milo you are being a dick. Yes, I'm being a dick for citing the "do not be a dick" policy to Milo. I admit it. Nevertheless, he's being a dick and being subtle didn't work.

No one seems to be able to articulate a case for why CallMe is wrong other than "the rules" in which you ignore the "ignore all rules" rule in addition to the don't be a dick rule in certain cases. This is about discussion and concensus, not democracy or being a dick. So, please contructively contribute to the discussion or exercise your right not to speak. I don't think idiotic threats contribute anything.--64.151.41.50 14:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, look, IAR means you can ignore the rules when everyone agrees. Clearly, some of us do not agree, and are asking you to follow the policy. Why bother having policy at all, if a group of editors can decide to ignore them??? We can ignore all rules when it is universally agreed, but when even a single editor is asking you to respect policy; then you should do so! There is no need for long discussions about how obviously true this analysis is. I'm not asking if it is true or not, I'm asking who is trying to show that the company is "spinning facts to make themselves look better"? Who is this analyst? Is it Wikipedia? WP:NPOV means we presents "fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source," not that we "speculate about its financial health or viability of its business model" on our own!!! There is no room for compromise here, I'm a true dick, so provide a source, a name responsible, for this analysis, or delete it! --Merzul 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


A Solution?

I think this is a very icky wiki in its current form, but there have been valid points made on both sides. So, I ask if anyone has a problem with revising the last section to the following:

Financial

Because it is not publically traded, Angie's List is not required to release its financial information to the public. However, according to information released by the company, it has an estimated $14 million in annual revenue generated "primarily through advertising in its newsletter and by charging customers $4.95 a month, or $47 annually." Angie's List has not publicly disclosed its annual expenses nor overall profitablility data.

Membership Information

As of January 2007, Angie's list reports having 500,000 members, but has not specified whether or not that figure includes only paid members or whether it also include members using a free trial membership. END

Comment: if the point of this membership section is to guage its popularity, I think traffic rankings can be used. I pulled the following from Alexa.com:

Traffic Rank for angieslist.com:

Today (02-08-2007: 20,209 1 wk.Avg.: 32,020 3 mos. Avg.: 29,122 3 mos. Change: down 9,903

I'll leave it to you wise editors to decide if and how this information can be used. --Icky-Wiki-God 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the financial/membership bit would be a huge improvement, just include the refs that are already in the article. I don't think alexa is needed, there's generally a lot of skepticism about it on wikipedia. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
At one point I attempted to trim that section down to essetially what you suggest; and was reverted by 24. That wording is fine with me if it's fine with everyone else. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course... The only objection is to the original research here that could lead to WP:OFFICE trouble. I wonder why 24 insist on including this analysis at all, the article already contains enough criticism. There is absolutely no need to add our own speculations. --Merzul 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've requested unprotection on the article, with four editors supporting this we seem to have a consensus on it. Once unprotected, go ahead and put this proposed edit in. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

24 hasn't agreed to this yet. The point of the protection was to stop the revert war. If it's unprotected and the revision made and he doesn't like it, what's to stop the revert war restarting? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
We need consensus, not unanimity. It's not always possible to make everyone happy, particularly when one editor has vowed not to follow policy. If 24 revert wars again, it will stop when he/she violates WP:3RR (or even if an admin feels that someone is reverting disruptively, I've asked the admins to watch this after unprotecting). If he/she reverts this, I'd recommend reverting once and letting another editor do the next revert. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is unprotected if someone wants to go ahead and make the edit. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo, I'm glad you find the language acceptable, but let's give the other side a chance to express their views before we jump to the conclusion that there is a consensus. I think both sides might be a little too emotionally invested in this. You seem to be throwing more gasoline on this fire with you actions and comments, with little upside as far as I can tell. I quote the great Don Corleone "Never hate your enemies, it clouds your judgment" People who are emotionally invested in a position tend not to easily reach a compromise. Declaring a consensus exists when it doesn't reduces the chance of actually reaching one. So, let's all just relax and see what happens.--Icky-Wiki-God 22:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with the changes. What makes you think I wouldn't be? I agree with Milo regarding the Alexa stats, but for a different reason. By itself I don't think it means much. You would have to compare it to the stats of competitors to be meaningful. The problem with that is Angie's List's competitors don't charge for access. So their traffic rank's are probably higher than if they would be if they too charged for access.

Some minor changes to the language may be "Since it is a private company... and in the quote I would replace the word "customers" with "[members]" Adverisers in their newsletter are Angie's List customers too. The word members seems more accurate.

Kudos to the Icky-Wiki-God for the suggestion, and for telling Milo that he's a being a dick in such a diplomatic manner. ONUnicorn - I don't think your version was quite like this and if I am wrong about that, please accept my apologies. --Call me 24 23:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Milo, the brackets are needed to indicate that it is not an exact quote. Brackets are also a wiki format which creates a link to another wikipedia page I beleive. Without the no-wiki format it will create a link rather than having brackets in the text. I'm not going to revert it, so I ask you to reconsider your change.--Icky-Wiki-God 00:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

77 years

I propose removing the "77 years" line, without a source, it's original research. If a reliable source for it can be added, I'd be fine with keeping it. Opinions? --Milo H Minderbinder 00:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To keep in the spirit of compromise and consenus, if you delete it that line, how about changing the previous line to

Angie's List has not released data on the number of consumer reviews it receives per company listed, but does it does report receiving approximately 15,000 consumer reviews each month.[3]

This uses the 15,000 number but is less misleading than the current statement since it tells the reader that one can't tell the number of reviews per month without also knowing the number of contractors that are being reviewed.

Thoughts?--Call me 24 01:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. --Milo H Minderbinder 01:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a fair compromise and somebody should make the change. SarahER 00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

More Suggestions

Here are some more sources that might be able to help you other editors out:

  • (1)In response to this statement, "According to the New York Times, companies like Angie's List suffer from few reviews per company listed" I found a source that shows Angie's List has up to 500 reports on some companies. There are not that many reports on all the companies, but I think this article does a good job of offering perspective and fair expectations. Older cities you can expect to find a lot of reviews in more popular categories, but in newer cities the list is still growing so you won't find as many. [8]
  • (2) Here's a source that shows another step Angie's List takes in preventing reports from companies and their competitors. “Members are asked on each report to confirm that they have no link, or don't compete against the business.” [9]
  • (3) This provides 2 view points so I think it's balanced and neutral:“Some business owners admit they are a tad leery that spiteful customers could attempt to distort a service experience and leave a negative comment without their knowledge. But Hicks' in-house staffers are skilled at picking out would-be saboteurs and are available to mediate disputes.'We have people who review the reports to make sure someone's not trying to stack the deck,' said Hicks, who said Angie's List employs 200 people in five offices nationwide. 'We vigorously police that stuff.' That's not enough for Gary Kearns of Dearborn-based Kearns Brothers Inc. home improvement business. Kearns, director of sales and marketing, checks the list to make sure customers accurately report the job. Kearns this week had 22 consumer reports posted on the site and carried an "A" rating.” [10] Also, in this article it says that this company received 22 reports in one week, so I think that shows that the reports are more than "trickling" in.
  • (4)More on keeping the list honest:"The limit is one review per business category every six months, to guard against ballot-box-stuffing. A staff of 200 keeps an eagle eye out for possible plants by business owners. But cheating is not a big problem, in part because the site attracts stand-up, community-minded people, Hicks said in a phone interview from headquarters in Indianapolis." [11] “Members are limited to reporting on a specific company once every six months to prevent users from skewing ratings, Hicks said.” [12]
  • (5)“The fee doesn't bother Davis or many business owners, who claim there's less chance of abuse because people have to pay to leave a nasty comment.” [13]
  • (6) And yes, the 500,000 figure probably does include some free members but there are no definite figures on how many are free and how many are paid. “New Angie's List locations launch as a free service to attract consumer reviews, but switch to a fee service once the content is built up, Hicks said.”[14]

I hope some of this can help you improve the article. SarahER 01:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, thanks for the contribution. Don't take my comments personally. You have a very tough job Sarah. I want to contribute to the discussion and address whether some of the stats and quotes you offer would be misleading. You know the old saying "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." So I think we need to examine them a little bit before we just incorporate them into the article, particularly when the company seems to be the original source of all the information. I numbered your points above for clarity.

(1) That is a fair point, but it should need to address the age of the reviews too. One would expect the older cities have more reviews, but those reviews are probably not as current either. That's why the rate at which you receive reviews is important. It also does not address the average review per company listed and it seems like the people who sign up the day after they have to start paying don't seem to get their money's worth, because you don't tell them that all the reviews previously submitted were from free subscribers, which makes them less reliable according to Angie.

One of the articles you cite from December of 2006, claims that Angie's List gets only 5,000 reports a month nationally, as opposed to the 15,000 claim in the Wikipedia article. Please clarify which is accurate.

(2) That probably works as well as porn sites asking if the user is over 18. Come on Sarah, you kill your credibility when making statements like that. Adding that information to the article is going to make the company look foolish.

(3) Again, you are just saying "it's not allowed" You don't say how Angie's team of 200 prevents it. If a single company gets 22 reports in a single week when the average company only gets one a year (or whatever the number actually is) it looks like that company either a) has far superior market share than it's competitors, b) they do a great job of promoting Angie's List to their happy customers (which is still a distortion if true), c) they are simply cheating by submitting reviews themselves, d) or it is just an amazing coincidence few are likely to believe.

(4) Community minded people? How exactly did Angie determine that? That spin makes me dizzy.

(5) Why should the fee bother them, they are not supposed to be paying it? Wouldn't that also distort the ratings since some would like to leave a negative review, but not enough to pay your fee? Could you please confirm whether Angie's List has required its members who have disputes resolved through Angie's List to leave the contractor no worse than a B rating, as reported by a reviewer on RateItAll.com?

(6) "Probably includes some"? Doesn't Angie's List know that information as of any particular date?

It doesn't bother me that your company is spinning, that's what for profit companies are supposed to do. It bothers me that it spins while judging other companies and trying to portray itself as a version of Consumer Reports (a nonprofit that refuses all advertising and company samples or ANYTHING that might tarnish its reputation). At the same time, it is taking people's money and and making claims that so far have not been backed up by the facts. Despite another editor's statement that "readers are not stupid," some people can be and often are quite stupid and most people can be stupid or foolish or whatever term you want to use from time to time. Anyone really need a cite for that?

Remember a neutral point of view is the goal, not necessarily a neutral article. To illustrate the difference, I don't think an article about Stalin would need to be neutral in content to have a neutral point of view as he did deplorable things that history judges him for. Similarly an article about Mother Teresa would not need to be neutral in content to have a neutral point of view. --Call me 24 20:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any input on incorporating my suggestions into the article? These sources are reliable so I'm not really sure what needs to be debated. If you have sources to back up your counterpoints, please let us know. Based on WP:ATT I don't see why my sources shouldn't be used just because they include interviews with employees. They are reputable newspaper sources. Also, I'm not sure what your comment that we are "judging other companies and trying to portray itself as a version of Consumer Reports" has to do with this article. And where exactly are we judging other companies and portraying ourselves as Consumer Reports? What claims have we made that have not been backed up by facts? We are not just taking people's money, they are paying for a service which they find valuable. If they didn't find it valuable, they wouldn't pay for it. SarahER 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have input. Sorry Sarah, I agree with Callme. Sarah, your spin is really over the top and very misleading. Callme did you a favor by pointing out some of the ridiculous statements you wanted to add to the article. Your added spin of "These sources are reliable so I'm not really sure what needs to be debated" ignores npov which is the issue Callme is raising and the fact that only in the Wiki world might these sources be deemed reliable.

I also find it troubling that after almost a month, you did not address Callme's points, and instead sought help from others, which will probably be more Angie's List employees under different usernames. It seems the type of thing you would want to address if Angie's List wasn't a scam, especially points 1, 5 and 6. By the way, people have to pay Angie's List first before they know whether it is valuable to them or not, and like a patient getting a placebo, just because some may think it's valuable doesn't make it so. 64.151.41.50 06:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that what Sarah is trying to do is spin the article, and it is a gross overstatement to say that any spin is over the top. If anything, she is trying to provide facts to accusations that have been made about the company in this article. Callme has made it painfully obviously that he or she has a serious issue with the company and has decided to use this forum to paint the company in a negative light. Any post or change made by Sarah was in direct response to an over the top negative comment or information that was posted without citation.
Callme also continues to engage in hyperbole (To illustrate the difference, I don't think an article about Stalin would need to be neutral in content to have a neutral point of view as he did deplorable things that history judges him for. Similarly an article about Mother Teresa would not need to be neutral in content to have a neutral point of view.), which really adds little to the discussion.
Additionally, comments such as this: By the way, people have to pay Angie's List first before they know whether it is valuable to them or not, and like a patient getting a placebo, just because some may think it's valuable doesn't make it so. don't help the situation. It is not the job of the article to sway someone's position one way or another, but simply to provide individuals with information about the services that the company provides. Based on this information, that person can decide whether or not they want to join Angie's List.
I also think that it's ironic that you accuse Sarah of recruiting other Angie's List members to post for her, and yet both your IP address and that of Callme's both come from Kansas City.
I really think that at this point, the whole page should be removed because it's obvious that no middle ground is going to be reached.TCFC 20:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, ironic, but not as ironic as someone who is not an Angie's List employee checking the IP addresses of their critics? Whoops :)
Look, the article has been peer reviewed and all the statements are supported with reliable sources under WP policy. You wanted to add information and an objection was raised as to npov with explanations. Nearly a month passed and no one expressed support for your changes nor did you respond to any of the objections. So, quit crying about it. The simple solution would be for your company to be more forthcoming about the information it releases.
Again I say, Call me did you a favor, by pointing out the problems with your suggestions. Your cititations don't exactly create a positive spin for Angie's List from a member's perspective. One article states that you use your 200 employees to keep a watch out for those who would give businesses a negative review. The same article also states that that's not good enough for one business, who checks to make sure the information is reported accurately. Well, what happens if a business claims it isn't accurate or you think you have identified a member who posts a negative review you think is bogus? Hmmm? If you pull the review, its no longer the members, but Angie's List who determine the business' rating since you really don't know if it is bogus or not. So now you are in the business of judging which reviews are acceptable and which ones are not while at the same time accepting money from the businesses you review. You are accepting money from members on the premise that your system is honest opinions from those who use the contractors. You need to be more open about exactly what your policies are, and you wouldn't get so much grief. 64.151.41.50 01:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have absolutely zero affiliation to Angie's List but thanks for playing.
You missed the entire point of the post that I made, but I'm not really surprised. I will try and make this really simple for you.
My issue has to do with the matter in which the article has been written and the tone that exists on this board.
As I said before, it has become blatantly obvious that both you and Callme have a serious axe to grind with the company. What you fail to grasp is that this is not the forum in which those issues should be addressed. Callme has repeatedly posted information in the article that is nothing more than conjecture aimed at hurting the reputation of the company. I (and maybe others agree with me) feel that he or she is abusing what the purpose of this page should be (and just to be clear, I would feel the same way if Sarah or anyone at the company was using this page as a platform to promote Angie’s List).
IMO, the page should consist of two paragraphs. One containing the history of the company and the other being what the company publicly states that it does. It is not the job of you or me or anyone to determine on this page whether or not the company actually does what it says it does. If you are so concerned about questioning the way in which the company operates, I suggest that you take it up with the company directly, or go start a blog where you can question the motives of the company all you want. There are plenty of places on the internet where people can find both positive and negative information on the company, but this page should not be a harbor for either.
And I really don’t care if you can find cited information that questions what the company does unless you are willing to concede that for every negative entry on the page, there should be an equally positive review of the company posted. The problem you then run in to is that the article is rendered useless because it has become nothing more than a pissing match.
At least Sarah has been honest from the outset that she is an employee of the company. I really think that it is ridiculous for you and Callme to attack her because she is trying to defend the company that she works for. I’m sure you would do the same if someone publicly attacked the way in which your business was run by posting incorrect and inaccurate information.
What are your motives here? You and Callme continually attack Sarah and her motives, but not one time has she done the same to you. It would be very easy for someone to accuse you of being a competitor or of simply being the operator of a company that received a less than flattering review on Angie’s List and is now trying to get back at the company. Other than those two reasons, I fail to see why anyone would be so hell-bent on trying to portray the company in a negative light.TCFC 14:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for adding a dose of logic into this discussion, but if those are the only two reasons someone would protray a company in a negative light, then all the negative reviews on Angie's List must be from competitors since the other reason doesn't seem to be applicable. There are two obvious alternatives you left out: 1. disgruntled employees or ex-employees and 2 former customers of yours that weren't too impressed with Angie's List. I suppose they could just be community minded, but who really buys that. They must have an agenda of some sort to protray a company in a negative light.

But let's move off this topic, because I'm pretty sure its against WP policy to attack others or question their motives and anyone can accuse anyone else of an agenda if they don't like their opinion. So how about everyone knock it off. There probably isn't a single person on here without any bias or an agenda of some sort. For all I know there are only two people on this board or a single person with serious case of multiple personalities.

So back to the article... TCFC, your opinion that you think the article should be nothing more than history of the company and public statements the company would seem to run afoul of the prohibition against adveritising, since that would be all that is left. Furthermore, NPOV does not require a positive statement for every negative statement. Try applying that standard to the article on Hitler. "He murdered millions in the holocost, but he was really nice to his puppy." You misunderstand NPOV means. There is plenty of positive things in this article about Angie's List, most of the sources cited cast the company in a very generous light, perhaps a little too generous in many cases. The parts you probably do not like have citations to reliable sources, so why don't you discuss what you don't like about the article. LonnieR 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My Response

Thank you for your input 64.151.41.50. I can understand how you would think I would want to spin this article since I am an employee of Angie's List. If I were you I might think the same thing. However, I am trying to follow Wiki policy and guidelines which is why I sought out sources which are reliable and also why I have requested additional input. If anyone questions the reliability of the sources I provided because they may include interviews with employees (even Angie herself) please refer to WP:ATT. You may be of the opinion that these are ridiculous statements, but that doesn't change the fact that they are printed in reliable sources and are actually written by someone outside of the company. I would welcome you, or anyone else, to offer additional sources to improve the article and work toward WP:NPOV.

I am offended that you assume I am soliciting other Angie's List employees to agree with me anonymously. I have been honest since the beginning. Call Me and I obviously have very strong opinions in opposite directions, which is why I asked for additional input on my suggestions. It seems you have a very strong opinion against Angie's List as well. I respect your opinions, but Wikipedia is not the place to express them. Please refer to WP:TPG for the Talk Page guidelines. I would like to keep this discussion on track and productive. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article, not opinions on the subject of the article.

I will try to respond to some of the objections and questions raised above where it is productive for the discussion and improvement of the article.

  • 1. True, some of the reviews will be older than others. We've been operating for over 11 years so there will be reviews that are 11 years old. That's still 500 reviews. Perhaps the company has been providing good service for the past 11 years and those 500 reviews demonstrate that. I may be more concerned with the most recent reviews, but it's still reassuring if a company has been getting good reviews that long. Regarding the fact that some reviews may have come from free members, the fact that we require all members to register helps maintain the integrity because it allows us to see who is submitting the reviews. I provided this source in response to this misleading statement in the article "companies like Angie's List suffer from few reviews per company listed." You can either add my source to create a balanced perspective, or you can remove this line completely.
  • 2. This is part of our membership agreement. People caught violating are revoked from membership. It's just one of the steps we take. I've already cited sources for the other steps we take.
  • 5. I'm not sure how your point is helping the article and there are no reliable sources discussing this policy. I will tell you that the member decides if he/she thinks the issue is resolved. If he/she is satisfied with the resolution it would not be fair to leave the original, negative report. Why would a company want to try to resolve an issue if the negative report would remain on their record? The member can amend the comments to describe the original problem and how it was resolved.
  • 6. Yes, I could probably find that data (or someone could), but if it doesn't come from a reliable source what difference does it make? (Not that I don't consider myself a reliable source, but I wouldn't be for purposes of Wikipedia.)
  • 64.151.41.50 stated, "By the way, people have to pay Angie's List first before they know whether it is valuable to them or not, and like a patient getting a placebo, just because some may think it's valuable doesn't make it so." People pay to sign up based on what they know and if they think it will be valuable to them. If they later decide it is not valuable to them they can cancel, ask for a refund, not renew, etc. Some find it valuable and continue to renew year after year. Others may not find it valuable, for various reasons (they aren't doing work on their house, already know good service companies, or may not like the information we offer). However, the opinion on whether or not Angie's List is a valuable service, does not belong in the article unless it is cited in a reliable source. I believe many of the sources I cited show people who find it valuable as well as people who don't. To find value in something is relative to personal needs and taste - I'm not sure this is an encyclopedic matter. Should it even be presented in a Wikipedia article?
  • "Well, what happens if a business claims it isn't accurate or you think you have identified a member who posts a negative review you think is bogus? Hmmm? If you pull the review, its no longer the members, but Angie's List who determine the business' rating since you really don't know if it is bogus or not. So now you are in the business of judging which reviews are acceptable and which ones are not while at the same time accepting money from the businesses you review." You don't know what happens if a business claims a report isn't accurate and you have no reliable source that states our practice, so please don't speculate on this matter. I have also suggested several times that the line "though Angie's List ultimately controls a company rating" be removed because it is unsourced. It is based on this same speculation.

Whew! Sorry for the lengthiness! SarahER 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on latest edit

Milo, thanks for working on improving the article. I have a comment on your recent edit. The quote from the NY Times article refers to review sites in general, not Angie's List specifically. I think that somehow needs to be clarified. Also, it's not entirely accurate to say "smaller cities where it has been operating longer." Some of the cities where we've been operating longest and have many reviews I wouldn't call small (eg. Columbus, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Tampa Bay, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Boston). They may not be the largest cities, but small is misleading. Maybe that sentence would be better if we just eliminated the word "smaller." I'm open to feedback. Thanks! SarahER 12:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the article says that they have more LISTINGS not more REVIEWS in smaller cities where it has been operating longer. The previous version of this section is also more accurate and better writing. Few reviews per company listed is another way of saying that the reviews are thin or spotty. LonnieR 22:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


I must say, this is quite a lot of silly hubub over this company.Isaac Crumm 05:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Forum Post Quoted in NewsDay

Hi,

I'm the author of the blog referenced in the lines

A forum post quoted in Newsday, however demonstrates that it would be easy for business owners to get around this prohibition,

"Let's say that I'm the business owner.... If I can create a fake e-mail account and use my home address (or my neighbor's address) so that Angie's List doesn't know who I am, then [$5.95] a month is a pittance for being able to enter a review of my own business. So, their whole 'we charge a small fee to keep the reviews honest' thing doesn't work ... but it sure does help bring in revenue without worrying about advertising."

[1]

The only part of the newsday article that is quoted is a section that was quoted - verbatim - from my blog. Now, I know it's against policy to add a link to my own blog to so I'm not going to do that. But I don't see the point in pointing a citation to a news-story that copied the thing from my site. If the quotation is worth including then I believe its worth citing the original source of the concept and phrasing.

Also, it's not a forum. It's a blog. All the commenters on that post may make it look like a forum but it's not.

Thanks, Greg Knaddison - blogger at [15]

Hello. Thanks for correcting us as to it being a blog, not a forum. I have linked to the original post; but have retained the Newsday reference because Wikipedia's rules about Reliable sources specifically state that blogs and forums are not reliable sources, but newspaper articles are. I know, it seems kind of dumb that we can't quote your blog, because it's not a reliable source, but if the newspaper quotes your blog, then we can quote the newspaper. I think the general idea behind the seeming paradox is that if I were to talk to you (in person, or on the phone) and you were to say something and I were come along and quote that in Wikipedia that would be original research that others could not verify, but if a reporter interviewed you and printed the quote then it's considered reliable. That concept gets fuzzy with blogs, but the concept holds that one person's opinion is not considered "reliable" until reported by another. Still, it's good to be able to have a link to the original blog entry to put the quote in context. Thanks for the updated info. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dead_external_links You do not simply remove the reference because the link is no longer available, you simply cite to the printed source so the reader can go to the library and read it themselves—Preceding unsigned comment added by Baywatcher2000 (talk • contribs)

I did not remove the reference, I commented it out and asked for citation information for the printed source. You have not cited to the printed source, and I have no way of finding the correct citation info for the printed source with nothing more to go on than your statement that, at some time in the past, the Detroit News ran an article about Angie's List. I have no idea why you called my edit biased. Now that you have included a date, however, it might be easier to find the article. Do you have the rest of the citation information for it? Title of the article, author, what page of the paper it appeared on? If you have that, put it here on the talk page if you don't know how to format the reference, and I'll format it for you. If you do know how to format the reference, then go ahead and do it yourself. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What you did was made so the reader of the article could not see it. You know perfectly well that link was valid at one time and continues to be available on that site, albeit for a fee. Baywatcher2000 17:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I did make it so that the reader could not see it, because without something more than a dead link the reader cannot verify it. I have agian commented it out, although you do have a date now for the article, which is helpful. However, in order for it to be verifiable, we really need the name of the article. Some other things that would be nice are the author of the article and the page in the print edition where it can be located. However, if you just give us the name of the article it'll make me happy. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Angie's List Logo.gif

Image:Angie's List Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Angie's List Logo.jpg

Image:Angie's List Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing by the company

Please note that Angie's list removed large parts of this article that were unfavourable and inserted false information: e.g. that the New York Times article says that it "keeps local business honest" which was not mentioned AT ALL in the article. I have reverted the edits. Smartse (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC) =Changes made September 9, 2009== Updated link to Newsday article referenced. Removed part of quote from blog that did not appear in Newsday article. Changed opening quote from NY Times to more accurately reflect the NY Times article, updated numbers from Angie's List's website for better accuracy. --Caslikethat(talk) 16:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Other False Information

In this review (by an Angie's employee ?), there is also part of a sentence that says companies do not pay to have their business listed on Angie's List. That is false because I just finished reading reviews on a "Angies List : Scam or real?" web link, and at least 2 business people (from separate companies) stated that not only do they have to pay to be listed, but were strongly encouraged (by Angie's List employees) to pay even more to get more visibility higher on the lists.


Gail Noon — Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroPointGirl (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ May, Liisa (January 26, 2007). "All You Need To Know On The Web". Newsday. Retrieved February 5, 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angi_Inc./Archive_1&oldid=1114688895"